|
Post by Stormsmith Dropout on Jun 27, 2017 1:07:45 GMT
Feora1 does roll, she has a 1\3 chance for every model effected to have nothing happen And for an e-leap to happen, the attack it is based on has to hit.
|
|
|
Post by ForEver_Blight on Jun 27, 2017 1:08:00 GMT
Ashes to ashes should specify enemy IMO Should AOEs specify they can only target enemy models? And spells that slam/throw models? Should knockdown not result in auto hits? Should Nemo1 have to roll to hit models with his feat? How about Feora1? Grundback? Would you please stop exaggerating and inflating a comment to attack it by listing things that were never brought up. I don't care what you're arguing, but stay on topic. Stop trying to make their comment seem illogical by arguing the existence of other rules. You're being nothing but dishonest.
|
|
|
Post by Cryptix on Jun 27, 2017 1:10:21 GMT
At least try to not insult people or throw out faction bias accusations? I anticipate having to nuke this thread fast if this continues.
|
|
|
Post by Swampmist on Jun 27, 2017 1:13:40 GMT
Feora1 does roll, she has a 1\3 chance for every model effected to have nothing happen And for an e-leap to happen, the attack it is based on has to hit. Hit a model immune to it in the back, you mean.
|
|
|
Post by W0lfBane on Jun 27, 2017 1:17:45 GMT
Ashes to ashes should specify enemy IMO Should AOEs specify they can only target enemy models? And spells that slam/throw models? Should knockdown not result in auto hits? Should Nemo1 have to roll to hit models with his feat? How about Feora1? Grundback? What you're telling me they don't? *Throws all his models in the trash* Anyways while we're at it trick shot and magic bullet should have to hit enemy models as well. And the real world should be all sunshine and rainbows but everything sucks and e-leaps are bs so I'm sorry i want nice things
|
|
|
Post by Stormsmith Dropout on Jun 27, 2017 1:26:06 GMT
Should AOEs specify they can only target enemy models? And spells that slam/throw models? Should knockdown not result in auto hits? Should Nemo1 have to roll to hit models with his feat? How about Feora1? Grundback? Would you please stop exaggerating and inflating a comment to attack it by listing things that were never brought up. I don't care what you're arguing, but stay on topic. Stop trying to make their comment seem illogical by arguing the existence of other rules. You're being nothing but dishonest. It's not dishonest. They are examples of arguments that can be made with the reasons: "I don't like auto-hitting stuff" OR "auto-hitting stuff is bad." I am trying to establish whether or not this reason is logically consistent by establishing whether or not all auto-hitting things in WMH should be removed. The statement was that e-leaps should not be able to leap from friendly targets. Because that's bad. Is it not very similar that an AOE can target a friendly model, and damage nearby models? So, I was curious about whether or not this is also a case of abusing rules. Likewise, there are spells which slam or throw models (friend or foe) that can automatically hit an enemy. Does this interaction also need to go? These interactions are relevant. My comments were not dishonest. And I'm not exagerating.
|
|
|
Post by W0lfBane on Jun 27, 2017 1:29:26 GMT
Likewise, there are spells which slam or throw models (friend or foe) that can automatically hit an enemy. Does this interaction also need to go? What spells are you taking about. Curious?
|
|
|
Post by ForEver_Blight on Jun 27, 2017 1:32:14 GMT
Would you please stop exaggerating and inflating a comment to attack it by listing things that were never brought up. I don't care what you're arguing, but stay on topic. Stop trying to make their comment seem illogical by arguing the existence of other rules. You're being nothing but dishonest. It's not dishonest. They are examples of arguments that can be made with the reasons: "I don't like auto-hitting stuff" OR "auto-hitting stuff is bad." I am trying to establish whether or not this reason is logically consistent by establishing whether or not all auto-hitting things in WMH should be removed. The statement was that e-leaps should not be able to leap from friendly targets. Because that's bad. Is it not very similar that an AOE can target a friendly model, and damage nearby models? So, I was curious about whether or not this is also a case of abusing rules. Likewise, there are spells which slam or throw models (friend or foe) that can automatically hit an enemy. Does this interaction also need to go? These interactions are relevant. My comments were not dishonest. And I'm not exagerating. But you can discuss and make changes to a single aspect of the game without changing every single possibly simialr aspect. By grouping them all together you're making it out to be impossible or unfair as it would change everything. which it would not. Spine burst can be changed in the way of "enemy only, roll to hit the jumps" but e-leaps can stay the same and vice versa. Because they are two separate mechanics.
|
|
|
Post by Stormsmith Dropout on Jun 27, 2017 1:34:17 GMT
Likewise, there are spells which slam or throw models (friend or foe) that can automatically hit an enemy. Does this interaction also need to go? What spells are you taking about. Curious? Off the top of my head: Force hammer Thunderstrike White squall
|
|
|
Post by Stormsmith Dropout on Jun 27, 2017 1:41:39 GMT
It's not dishonest. They are examples of arguments that can be made with the reasons: "I don't like auto-hitting stuff" OR "auto-hitting stuff is bad." I am trying to establish whether or not this reason is logically consistent by establishing whether or not all auto-hitting things in WMH should be removed. The statement was that e-leaps should not be able to leap from friendly targets. Because that's bad. Is it not very similar that an AOE can target a friendly model, and damage nearby models? So, I was curious about whether or not this is also a case of abusing rules. Likewise, there are spells which slam or throw models (friend or foe) that can automatically hit an enemy. Does this interaction also need to go? These interactions are relevant. My comments were not dishonest. And I'm not exagerating. But you can discuss and make changes to a single aspect of the game without changing every single possibly simialr aspect. By grouping them all together you're making it out to be impossible or unfair as it would change everything. which it would not. Spine burst can be changed in the way of "enemy only, roll to hit the jumps" but e-leaps can stay the same and vice versa. Because they are TWO separate mechanics. I'm not whinging that everything should be changed at once. It's really very simple: IF e-leaps are bad BECAUSE they can bounce from friendlies and auto-hit THEN those features are the bad parts. Right? And if that's the case, then shouldn't all mechanics which have those features also be up for discussion? Well, AOEs have those exact traits. You can shoot friendlies to damage enemies regardless of their defense/stealth/positioning/terrain. My point is that anyone who wants e-leaps changed to not have these traits, but is fine with AOEs, has a logically inconsistent view.
|
|
|
Post by Swampmist on Jun 27, 2017 1:46:57 GMT
my issue is actually not that eleaps auto hit, though they do it at a higher pow that most blasts and there is a lot more blast immunity than there is electric in the game, but that they do not count as attacks. Even if just for corpse and soul collection, I think they should be considered an attack.
|
|
|
Post by W0lfBane on Jun 27, 2017 1:50:35 GMT
What spells are you taking about. Curious? Off the top of my head: Force hammer Thunderstrike White squall I guess i never came across this cause slamming your own shit is so bad i never thought of it
|
|
|
Post by Stormsmith Dropout on Jun 27, 2017 1:53:18 GMT
my issue is actually not that eleaps auto hit, though they do it at a higher pow that most blasts and there is a lot more blast immunity than there is electric in the game, but that they do not count as attacks. Even if just for corpse and soul collection, I think they should be considered an attack. An auto-hitting attack? I could certainly accept that.
|
|
|
Post by Stormsmith Dropout on Jun 27, 2017 1:54:48 GMT
Off the top of my head: Force hammer Thunderstrike White squall I guess i never came across this cause slamming your own shit is so bad i never thought of it Run a dude in front of enemy caster. He's like defense 11 in the back. Force hammer him. Caster is knocked down. Pew pew. And there's bombshell. Another throw that doesn't specify enemy.
|
|
|
Post by W0lfBane on Jun 27, 2017 1:56:08 GMT
I guess i never came across this cause slamming your own shit is so bad i never thought of it Run a dude in front of enemy caster. He's like defense 11 in the back. Force hammer him. Caster is knocked down. Pew pew. And there's bombshell. Another throw that doesn't specify enemy. I can see how that become a problem yes.
|
|